Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1506 (PNJ)

Punjab & Sind Bank v. Union Territory, Chandigarh

2013-11-18

MAHAVIR S.CHAUHAN, SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

body2013
JUDGMENT MAHAVIR S. CHAUHAN, J. The petitioner Bank purchased Site No.1101, Sector 11C, Chandigarh, for Staff Training Residential College of the bank but shifted its branch to that premises in September, 2002. As use of the residential premises for running a bank is not permissible, the premises was resumed by Chandigarh Administration vide order dated 09.06.2009. Appeal and revision filed by the petitioner to challenge the order of resumption having remained unsuccessful, petitioner approached this Court by way of Civil Writ Petition No.8109 of 2013 which is stated to be pending. However, in the meantime, petitioner approached the respondents for change of user of the premises so as to unable it to run branch of the bank therein but copy of the representation so made by the petitioner has been forwarded by respondent No.2 to respondent No.3 vide memorandum dated 12.03.2012 and said respondent has been requested to take immediate necessary action for removal of boards, issuance of misuse notice and direct the petitioner to stop the misuse with immediate effect while stating that request made by the petitioner for change of user has not been acceded to. The petitioner then made a representation for allotment of an alternative site to it for construction of building to run the bank therefrom. However, petitioner's request has been declined vide memorandum dated 25.07.2013 (Annexure P7). To seek quashing of the memoranda dated 12.03.2012 (Annexure P5) and 25.07.2013 (Annexure P7), petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the respondents have been allowing change of user to various professionals, such as, Architects, Barbers, Doctors, Photographers etc. and have also been allotting plots to various organizations but in spite of that request of the petitioner for change of user and for allotment of a plot has been declined and thereby the petitioner has been gravely discriminated against. and have also been allotting plots to various organizations but in spite of that request of the petitioner for change of user and for allotment of a plot has been declined and thereby the petitioner has been gravely discriminated against. However, on hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the averments made in the petition, we are not inclined to interfere with the aforestated memoranda for the reason that learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any provision of law or policy or rules permitting change of user of residential premises so as to permit commercial activity like a bank therein or any policy of the respondents entitling a bank to preferential allotment of plot. Though, it is sought to be contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner bank is rendering a public service by providing banking facilities to 9,000 saving accounts holders, 4,000 customers having fixed deposit accounts, 150 customers having current accounts, 80 customers having recurring deposit accounts, 800 locker accounts and 200 loan accounts but this contention has not impressed us because the policies promulgated by Chandigarh Administration from time to time do not permit running of a bank in residential premises and, even otherwise, allowing the prayer of the petitioner would amount to granting it a premium for violation of the rules of Chandigarh Administration by running a bank in the residential premises. Acceptance of petitioner's plea would also amount to preempting decision of the pending Civil Writ Petition wherein resumption on the basis of misuser is under challenge. The petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed.